• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Overly Glorified or Idealized Historical Figures

Which historical figures do you think are overly glorified or idealized when they shouldn't be?

Richard the lion heart, especially as an English hero.

Was French, barely went to England. Tried to usurp his dad and failed.

Did some crusading. Almost bankrupted the country to pay his ransom after getting captured on the way home by someone he was a **** to.

Then got shot with an arrow and died showing off while trying to capture an unimportant castle in France leading to the reign of the worst king of all, John.


In a slightly different vein, Hypatia.

Nothing wrong with her, and she was an impressive figure, but massively overrated and didn’t really do anything important.

People project all kinds of stuff onto her though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I can't believe that for America no one has brought up Christopher Columbus, in fact just in case.

EDIT: Okay let's start with the fact that Columbus was dead wrong about the Earth. It was not that others thought that the Earth was flat It was that others knew how big the Earth was. Columbus grossly underestimated the size of the Earth. He genuinely thought that he was somewhere near India when he hit the Caribbean islands that he walled the "West Indies" and they still bear that name today. And we also have "Indians" thanks to him.

It seems that he thought that the Earth was about half as big as it really is. His crew also had reasonable doubts. After two months of sailing they almost mutineed. But he put it off turning around for two days and he got lucky:

The First Voyage of Columbus

After two months they had only sailed the short distance from the Canary Islands to San Salvador. They would have still have had the whole distance across of North America and the Pacific if America was not there. He was not even close to his goal.

Over all he was not nice guy:


9 reasons Christopher Columbus was a murderer, tyrant, and scoundrel
 
Last edited:

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
^^^ read the Christopher Hitchens polemic, swallowed it whole, fact-checked none of it.
I don't read Hitchens'... stuff. I personally detest the man. Yet his reports are upheld by others, as well as the ongoing suffering that Theresa did nothing to alleviate, and instead claimed it to be "christ like". You want to fact check? Show where her $23 million dollars went, because it sure wasn't to help people. Being the Queen of Thoughts & Prayers doesn't make for a good person.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
I have been reading about Che Guevara and a few other prominent Marxists, and I find it disturbing that so many people don T-shirts or keep items bearing his visage in an idealizing manner. He had some good goals, such as liberation from imperialism, but some of his actions and words were dubious at best and, in my opinion, should definitely disqualify him from being held up as a role model to the extent where his image is on everyday items.

I suspect that many who participate in the pop-culture glorification of him either contribute to exploitation of third-world countries—which would make them inconsistent or at least misinformed about their own contribution to such or about what Guevara stood for—or would hate to live under the rule of someone with his overall mindset, which was extremely violent and unhesitant in being so.

I also similarly dislike glorification of Winston Churchill. He was a great leader for Britain during World War II, but he was also deeply racist even beyond the norms of his time and oversaw violent colonialism in multiple parts of the world.

Which historical figures do you think are overly glorified or idealized when they shouldn't be?
About every man named "the great". That title usually goes together with war and conquest. I don't know what's "great" with killing, pillaging and stealing land.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
When humans living. Are conscious.

Are alive are mutual equal.

Have experienced are still living then explain a human experience that's not normal. It's not normal as it's not happening to all as mutual equal in laws.

Law in relativity human advice is first.

A changed human life mind body isn't law.

Science...and only science convinced us that it was law.

To be changed forcibly. Then heal after you nearly bio died.

So humans teach preach...I nearly died. I returned to life.

Death in science biology laws exact. Decomposition only.

Humans in bio health are decomposing organically now as we live.

Basic medical advice.

When heavens body...pressures. osmosis crosses freshly oxygenated water into cells. Yet you are not breathing. It kept you alive.

It gave your body an opportunity to heal revive. So you did.

Heavens body spirit saved you a medical healer humans psychic observed teaching.

Exact.

Lots of humans body cell chemistry mind and cells endure change. Teaches us to be more life grateful. Especially if you are a poorer person of no status.

Your behaviour changes by conditions only living humans witnessed as a living human explained by a living human. ...to advise other living humans.

Who is less likely to claim deism of self.

So do or can humans see dead human imaged voiced heavens recordings? Yes.

As billions of humans have lived over time died.

Machines use the heavens recording status proving baby conceived life by sex only as a baby who dies is recorded. A baby who grows into adult body is recorded too.

Isnt how life was created from an image.

As cell image a human is sperm ovary. One very tiny body type owns life.

Dead humans own images seen in heavens said laws.
 
About every man named "the great". That title usually goes together with war and conquest. I don't know what's "great" with killing, pillaging and stealing land.

Didn’t have much choice then.

You could be peaceful and kind and wait to be conquered by someone else, but it’s not very rational.

Pretty much up until the 20th c, you could be the conqueror or risk being the conquered.

Empire building, overall, was both “proactive defence” and aggressive conquest.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Didn’t have much choice then.

You could be peaceful and kind and wait to be conquered by someone else, but it’s not very rational.

Pretty much up until the 20th c, you could be the conqueror or risk being the conquered.

Empire building, overall, was both “proactive defence” and aggressive conquest.
Taken from the point of view of his own people, someone like Cyrus was Great because;
1. He was impactful, which is one way of measuring 'greatness' moreso than 'righteousness'.
2. He improved their lot. Sure, perhaps at the expense of others, but still...
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I have been reading about Che Guevara and a few other prominent Marxists, and I find it disturbing that so many people don T-shirts or keep items bearing his visage in an idealizing manner. He had some good goals, such as liberation from imperialism, but some of his actions and words were dubious at best and, in my opinion, should definitely disqualify him from being held up as a role model to the extent where his image is on everyday items.

I suspect that many who participate in the pop-culture glorification of him either contribute to exploitation of third-world countries—which would make them inconsistent or at least misinformed about their own contribution to such or about what Guevara stood for—or would hate to live under the rule of someone with his overall mindset, which was extremely violent and unhesitant in being so.

I also similarly dislike glorification of Winston Churchill. He was a great leader for Britain during World War II, but he was also deeply racist even beyond the norms of his time and oversaw violent colonialism in multiple parts of the world.

Which historical figures do you think are overly glorified or idealized when they shouldn't be?
Well Julius Ceasar or Alexander comes to mind.
 

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Pick any historical figure. None of them were perfect. Quite a few of them are even less than imperfect.

I live in the South (U.S.) where Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee are still relevant and considered heroic by many. They have offered nothing to this nation but more suffering and divisiveness.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Revisionist history is where one judges the past, by the present, which then attempts to reframe the past, out of its own unique historical context. The goal is to mess-up the curve of history, that connects the past and present; add confusion. It is like trying to justify removing early experimental data points; destroy statues, so a the final science data curve, from early to later experiments, can be distorted. It is a con artist game to puff up bad ideas. This could also be explained with pathology.

In modern times, this is like cheating in science by rationalizing why some data point needs to be removed. Climate change, for example, ignores natural history data; geological data, such as the earth still being in warmup from the last ice age. It tries to erase this past; get rid of historical data, and then tries to explain the last 100 years by only the present theory assumptions; manmade. If one was objective about history,; not revised, you will look at both, since both are part of the same curve.

We were all teens at one time. Most teens are living somewhere between childhood and adulthood; wanting to learn to play like adults before adult responsibility. They will experiment and some will make bad choices. Many will not make these same choice later in life; jump off the high quarry ledges. It is part of learning about life.

Parents were teens at one time. They will try to provide feedback to their own teen children, based on our own similar choices and similar mistakes; human nature. Their children may or may not accept this advice in part or in full. Many teens will still need to learn on their own, so they can find their own 20/20 hindsight as they age.

In terms of the historical figures of the past, many adults of today; Left wing teachers, want to play Monday morning quarterback, with the people of the past. They try to treat them like they are their own children, due to 20/20 historical hindsight; watch the highlights.

However, historical figures were adults, older than them, with their own generational 20/20 hindsight. Our opinions of today, are nothing to those who lived past history. Our opinions cannot be used to help them avoid anything. It is more of a revisionist scam; I am holier than thou. The goal is to make their own bad fish teen bait; add to teen bad choices, appear like it was caught today. Parents see the scam and are fighting back.

Historical figures were all teen at one time. They, like all teens, pushed the boundaries of their own present time. They learned through the 20/20 hindsight of their elders and their own experiences in life at that time. Their adult choices, were optimized for those times, since they lived in the beginning of the curve, not the end of the curve.

I would fire any teacher who teaches revisionist history, since they are not being rational and can harm children. I would prefer teachers learn to accurately recreate times within history, and then explain why what they did was not perfect, for today, but it was appropriate for that occasion and was another step forward in time. The difference is like watching sports. If we watch in real time; live in history, any play can be positive or negative, since it has yet to unfold in time. This is different from the Lefty Teacher, pretending to be an expert of the past. They watch the re-runs; armchair quarterbacks of revisionist history.

I remember I had a history teacher in Junior High School; Mr McGovern. He was an awesome history teacher. He would try to recreate the ambiance of the times in history he was teaching, to give the students more historical context. He was really good at explaining the layout of major battles, the tough fight and the evils of war.

Those men and women of history, were like the players in a real time game, with their choices up against resistance; defense. It was anybody's game, as history unfolded. What we learn about the game of history, is where fate took the game; Monday highlights. His class was the best history class I ever had. Teachers of today may not be qualified to do such a good job. They seem to want to over compensate, as Monday Morning quarterbacks, pretending they could lead history in a real time game. This sort of explains why they teach bad choices; try to lead and impact history. They reverse engineer, incorrectly.
 
Revisionist history is where one judges the past, by the present, which then attempts to reframe the past, out of its own unique historical context.

That is presentism (or sometimes just plain old anachronism). Presentism is judging the past with regard to modern moral values and judging things good or bad based on how much they resemble our modern sensibilities or can be anachronistically forced into modern paradigms.

Revisionist history is simply introducing a new perspective on a historical issue.

For some reason, many people seem to think it is intrinsically pejorative to describe something as revisionist. It’s a neutral term though as most history is revisionist to some degree.

Some revisionism is agenda driven and biased pseudohistory, but other revisionism leads to valuable progress in understanding.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
We were all teens at one time.
We were all dumb kids at one time! How can you judge someone Historical for owning slaves or butchering an entire village just because they could or slaughtering 45,000 people in a single day or dropping nuclear bombs on two innocent cities of a nation that had already surrendered? I mean, we're all flawed guys.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
We were all dumb kids at one time! How can you judge someone Historical for owning slaves or butchering an entire village just because they could or slaughtering 45,000 people in a single day or dropping nuclear bombs on two innocent cities of a nation that had already surrendered? I mean, we're all flawed guys.
Japan hadn't surrendered. They were unwilling.
The bombs worked, ie, Japan surrendered, thereby
avoiding invading Japan, & saving many USA lives.
That was a good result, even for many Japanese.

BTW, did you know that firestorm bombings were
even deadlier than atomic bombs in Japan?
Odd...I've seen no criticism of that.
 
Last edited:

Koldo

Outstanding Member
That said, I'm not judging him by today's standards within the context of his own time; I just think he shouldn't be glorified today when we now know how awful the things he did were. Same for Guevara: it could be argued that a lot of what he did was seen as necessary at the time or had popular support, but recognizing this is different from wearing a T-shirt bearing his image today, which implies glorification despite what we know in the present.

I agree completely: Let's just not glorify people if they don't meet our standards. There is no need to treat a man that acts in accordance with the social norms and expectations of his time as if he was the worst of our species. But it is in poor taste to glorify him when he was very much lacking according to our current standards.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Revisionist history is where one judges the past, by the present, which then attempts to reframe the past, out of its own unique historical context. The goal is to mess-up the curve of history, that connects the past and present; add confusion. It is like trying to justify removing early experimental data points; destroy statues, so a the final science data curve, from early to later experiments, can be distorted. It is a con artist game to puff up bad ideas. This could also be explained with pathology.

In modern times, this is like cheating in science by rationalizing why some data point needs to be removed. Climate change, for example, ignores natural history data; geological data, such as the earth still being in warmup from the last ice age. It tries to erase this past; get rid of historical data, and then tries to explain the last 100 years by only the present theory assumptions; manmade. If one was objective about history,; not revised, you will look at both, since both are part of the same curve.

We were all teens at one time. Most teens are living somewhere between childhood and adulthood; wanting to learn to play like adults before adult responsibility. They will experiment and some will make bad choices. Many will not make these same choice later in life; jump off the high quarry ledges. It is part of learning about life.

Parents were teens at one time. They will try to provide feedback to their own teen children, based on our own similar choices and similar mistakes; human nature. Their children may or may not accept this advice in part or in full. Many teens will still need to learn on their own, so they can find their own 20/20 hindsight as they age.

In terms of the historical figures of the past, many adults of today; Left wing teachers, want to play Monday morning quarterback, with the people of the past. They try to treat them like they are their own children, due to 20/20 historical hindsight; watch the highlights.

However, historical figures were adults, older than them, with their own generational 20/20 hindsight. Our opinions of today, are nothing to those who lived past history. Our opinions cannot be used to help them avoid anything. It is more of a revisionist scam; I am holier than thou. The goal is to make their own bad fish teen bait; add to teen bad choices, appear like it was caught today. Parents see the scam and are fighting back.

Historical figures were all teen at one time. They, like all teens, pushed the boundaries of their own present time. They learned through the 20/20 hindsight of their elders and their own experiences in life at that time. Their adult choices, were optimized for those times, since they lived in the beginning of the curve, not the end of the curve.

I would fire any teacher who teaches revisionist history, since they are not being rational and can harm children. I would prefer teachers learn to accurately recreate times within history, and then explain why what they did was not perfect, for today, but it was appropriate for that occasion and was another step forward in time. The difference is like watching sports. If we watch in real time; live in history, any play can be positive or negative, since it has yet to unfold in time. This is different from the Lefty Teacher, pretending to be an expert of the past. They watch the re-runs; armchair quarterbacks of revisionist history.

I remember I had a history teacher in Junior High School; Mr McGovern. He was an awesome history teacher. He would try to recreate the ambiance of the times in history he was teaching, to give the students more historical context. He was really good at explaining the layout of major battles, the tough fight and the evils of war.

Those men and women of history, were like the players in a real time game, with their choices up against resistance; defense. It was anybody's game, as history unfolded. What we learn about the game of history, is where fate took the game; Monday highlights. His class was the best history class I ever had. Teachers of today may not be qualified to do such a good job. They seem to want to over compensate, as Monday Morning quarterbacks, pretending they could lead history in a real time game. This sort of explains why they teach bad choices; try to lead and impact history. They reverse engineer, incorrectly.
Ignore the modern politics of it all, and the OP is still accurate. Judge them by the standards of their own time, if you like. It remains true that some figures are idealised and glorified in a way that their actual accomplishments and records don't seem to support. Tutankhamen would be an example of this.
Others achieved great things (in the true sense of the word) but were deeply flawed, by the measure of their own time, nevermind modern times. Unless you don't think Alexander was carrying a few metaphorical demons with him?

Not everything is about a 21st century American political lens...
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Japan hadn't surrendered. They were unwilling.
The bombs worked, ie, Japan surrendered, thereby
avoiding invading Japan, & saving many USA lives.
That was a good result, even for many Japanese.

BTW, did you know that firebombings were even
deadlier than atomic bombs in Japan? Yet there's
no criticism of that.

I've been through Dresden. I'm not sure I'd agree (although perhaps you meant more specifically Tokyo).
But a lot of people are pretty...well..limited in their actual historical knowledge. Atomic bombs are catchier headlines.

Still, I think it's reasonable to question the second bomb.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Glorification of religious & political figures seems
to be a personal thing, albeit sometimes writ large
when enuf people feel the same way. Then statues
happen.
Many people have idols. Many don't. I don't.
But I recognize that some figures did good things
that stand out in their time.
 
Top